It is actually possible to not miss any Senate votes.

Susan Collins hasn't missed any.

Chuck Grassley went 27 years without missing a vote before his positive COVID test.
Senators often know when their votes won't change the outcome, and so will skip town for a family function, a funeral, a codel, a medical appointment, etc. Others refuse to do that because they see the vote itself as very important even if outcome doesn't change.
It's pretty darn rare for a missing lawmaker to actually change the outcome, and it didn't today.
I remember House Dems once trying to track down a wayward committee chairman like 12 years ago when I covered the House. That was awk! I remember them trying to track down a member who I think was in Miami ahead of the critical ACA vote. Also awk.
If there are ever 60 votes for something and the 60th vote misses the vote, you can always hold another vote.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Steven Dennis

Steven Dennis Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @StevenTDennis

29 May
The 1/6 Commission vote is a great example of how *attendance is not required* for a successful filibuster.

If you needed 41 votes to filibuster and not 60 to end one, yesterday *might* have gone differently.

At minimum, 6 more Republicans would have had to show up and vote.
The way the Senate rules work, a 59-1 vote is a victory for the 1. Likewise 54 loses to 35.

You need 60. I think @NormOrnstein has proposed 41 affirmative votes and some other tweaks to at minimum require attendance and make a filibuster harder work than it is today.
I don't think a 41 vote requirement would mean all that much in practice though. Take yesterday: Schumer needed consent of the Republicans to schedule the vote when he scheduled it.

Most of what the Senate does is done by *unanimous consent.* Once you start mucking with rules...
Read 4 tweets
28 May
! 1/6 COMMISSION BLOCKED ON 54-35 VOTE.
*60 VOTES WERE NEEDED TO OVERCOME GOP FILIBUSTER.
6 votes shy of the 60 needed.

For those tuning in who don’t understand Senate procedure the “No” voted are effectively irrelevant to the outcome.

You can win a vote 59-1 and still lose.

Some senators clearly had already left town before the vote.
Sorry about the typos. I was at the Senate last night until 3 a.m.
Read 4 tweets
28 May
*PORTMAN VOTES AYE on advancing the 1/6 Commission

I count 6 Republicans, 4 shy of overcoming McConnell-led filibuster.
The other 5 Republicans who have voted to advance the 1/6 Commission, unlike Portman, voted to convict Trump of inciting 1/6:
*SASSE
*CASSIDY
*COLLINS
*MURKOWSKI
*ROMNEY
The vote right now is 54-35, which is a losing vote in the U.S. Senate.

A "No" vote is irrelevant to the outcome.

In the U.S. Senate, 59-1 would lose because of the filibuster rule.

You must get 60.
Read 6 tweets
28 May
Activity on the Senate floor. I think I heard Mike Lee say "9 a.m."

Hopefully that means they adjourn and let the staff (and yours truly) go home for a bit???
Floor staff in intense discussion with Elizabeth MacDonough, the parliamentarian. Not sure what procedure they are discussing. Durbin, Schatz chatting away while they figure it out.
AFTER ALL THAT, THE SENATE HAS ADJOURNED UNTIL 9 AM AND I AM GOING HOME.

G'NIGHT
Read 5 tweets
28 May
Dick Durbin on the Senate floor holding down the fort until the Republicans decide they are done mini-filibustering.
While you are here and waiting, I recommend you pass the time by watching Durbin's epic speech about the evils of the aluminum baseball bat. c-span.org/video/?c450470…
Trust me, it's better than his speeches against energy drinks.
Read 4 tweets
28 May
We're now on the John Kennedy version of tonight's mini-buster. Says he doesn't think people know what's in the bill. Says their staffs know more about the bill than they do and floats letting the staff vote.
Kennedy hasn't talked about the bill yet, but lots of talk-talk.
Kennedy said he doesn't think there was a true open amendment process. (There were more votes on this bill than any non-reconciliation bill in recent memory, though).
Read 8 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(